Pole Building Design By Donald Patterson Structural Engineer B.E., State University of lowa, 1922; C.E., 1930. Member American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Testing Materials, International Association for Bridge and Donald Patterson has designed, constructed, and inspected all types of structures, from coast to coast, in which pressure treated round and sawn timbers are used. Because of his broad, diversified experience he is well qualified to have prepared this concise, dependable working manual. It is written for engineers by an engineer. It gives the correct design procedures for proportioning structural members of pole-type buildings of all sizes, kinds, and uses. Sixth Edition Copyright 1957, 1958, 1962, 1965, 1969 Copyright 1969 by the American Wood Preservers Institute, Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. This book, of parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission of the publishers. AMERICAN WOOD PRESERVERS INSTITUTE 2600 Virginia Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037 Reprinted, April 1970 Reprinted, August 1970 Structural Engineering, American Railway Engineering Association. ©) t_lndredged up from i PREFACE PROPERLY designed, modern polesype buildings lowe their popularity primarily to their low cost, the ease and speed with which they can be erected. Re cent surveys reveal that about 600,000 or more pole type buildings now are in service in the United States and Canada, Their adaptation to a wide range of functional structures for industrial and. commercial uses stems from more than 85 years of successful use in the farm field, where the several inherent advantages Of this type construction have been demonstrated. Construction experience has shown that building costs may be reduced by 25 to 50 percent or more by using poletype design. Contract prices for com pleted buildings have ranged {rom 90¢ to $140. a Sq.ft for farm buildings. Industral’ and commercial buildings have been erected for as little as $1.90 to $4.00 depending on location, labor costs and the type of finished building. Superstructures “of poletype buildings are_rela- tively light, Floor loads are supported independently by the ground and not by the frame of the buildings: hence elaborate, expensive masonry foundations are not required. Bases for the poles or columns, set to moderate depths in average soils, support these build ings safely even in regions where design provisions must be made for strong winds of hurricane force of for heavy snowtall. n Village, a thirty-acre island resort in Mission Bay, near San Diego, is built {ype constriction serves not only as the ‘af the architectural accer Erection also has been simplified. The necessity of cutting or framing of structural members so common in conventional construction in many designs, has almost been eliminated, The simple lapping of com- ‘mercial lengths of lumber obviates the necessity for any but the simplest cuts in members for roofs and walls, Designers find that pole buildings may be, modified or expanded with ease. They can be built to almost any desired dimensions or proportions. Buildings now in use range up to three acres of floor area. Ware- houses and bulk storage buildings are designed for the use of all types of automotive trucks and other types of materials handling equipment. Poles are widely spaced to allow for easy movements of palletized loads and larger machines. Wide clear spans are pro- vided by the use of simple, light-weight wood trusses. Poles and lumber, even in ground contact, when properly pressure preserved in accordance with stand- ard specifications, will last for 40 to 50 years and ‘more even in areas of very severe exposure. ‘Simplicity of construction lends itself to many adap- tions by designing architects and engineers, Further- more, well designed and well built structures of this type have proved their resistance to many severe storms and hurricanes. No longer are they classified as temporary low-cost expedients because good design has proved their worth through many years of service.ELEMENTS OF DESIGN INTRODUCTION SUMMARY Although the design of pole-type structures is basically very simple, civil for structural engineers should be employed in the design of most structures. ‘The safety and satisfactory performance of these buildings, as with other types, depend on the proper and informed evaluation of loads, stresses, deflections, foundation capabilities and their relative influence and import: ance in any given case. Since the stability of the structure depends upon the integrity and quality of the foundation material, it is also recommended that an adequate foundation investigation be made retaining the services of a ‘competent foundation engineer, if necessary. ‘These “Elements of Design” are intended to serve as a guide for engineers familiar with building design, The engineering concepts that are somewhat unusual or unique in pole-type buildings are stressed. ‘The steps required in designing a pole-type building may be briefly sum- marized as follows: general features, such as overall length and width, spacing of poles in wansverse bents, spacing of bents longitudinally in the building, height at the eaves, pitch and type of roof, and the kind of floor- ing to be used, as well as any special features such as wide bays. Unsym- metrical layouts or the possible suspension of particular loads from the roof framing, must be determined from the occupancy and use to which the building is to be put. Having determined these characteristics of the structure, external loads to be applied must be considered. These will be obtained from local codes wherever available, but they may, in some cases, have to be matters of judgment on the part of the designer. In the case of wind loads, resort may be had to the map on page 35 for horizontal pressures. Character of the soil must be investigated, preferably by some positive exploration, such as the soil auger mentioned in connection with the Rutledge chart; Figure 1, page 6. “The roof and its framing are then designed by conventional methods, proceeding from minor members to the larger and more basic supports, coming lastly to the poles themselves. These must be analyzed, first for the required depth of embedment, then bending and direct loading. Both the outside poles, which are generally governed by bending, and the interior ones in which the bending forces are diminishing and direct stresses reach their maximum, should be investigated. Since results obtained may require depths of embedment or pole sizes other than those originally assumed, it may be necessary to run through a second set of calculations until the various re- sults obtained are consistent throughout. ‘Not much work is involved in the design of even a large building of this type. A thorough analysis will be repaid by a structure economical through- out and with a large reserve of strength in some of its features, such as resistance to abnormal wind pressures. 2 QO )Pole grading and strength are given by the United States of America Stand- ards Institute in its publication, “Specifications and Dimensions for Wood Poles.” Table VI, page 45 in the Appendix is taken from that publication. It gives the dimensions for poles of Douglas fr and Southern pine. This USA bulletin also gives specifications and’ dimensions for all of the common varieties of timber used for poles, together with the general material, manu: facturing and handling requirements. The USA stress values are adopted also by the National Electrical Salety Code. Specifications and working stresses for sawed material are published by the lumber industry. The designer should refer to those applying to the species of lumber he intends using. Mlustrative examples that follow have assumed the use of Douglas fir or Southern pine lumber and poles of these same Design analysis will give the required fiber stress which, in turn, will indicate the grade of lumber to be used. In buildings where the loads are comparatively light or the spans rather short, lesser grades more readily obtainable in small lumber yards may be used. In structures where loads are heavy, spans are relatively long, or where special framing arrange- ‘ments or trusses are required, higher stress grades will be required. Poles and lumber that have been pressure treated in a closed cylinder to the recommended net retentions of preservative per cu. ft. of wood by a standard pressure process should be specified for columns and for frame lumber in contact with or close to the ground. Selecting the proper method of treatment is just as important as selecting fan effective preservative, The best preservative known will not prevent decay or insect damage to wood that is in contact with the soil or close to it if it has not been applied properly. The process used for injecting preservative into the wood must be one that, not only secures adequate depths of penetration to afford real protection, but also insures uniform dif- fusion of preservative through the treated area to avoid spotty treatments or thinly protected places where decay or insects may gain entrance to the untreated interior of the timber. ‘Wood preservatives fall into two broad groups, viz: (a), preservative oils or oil-borne chemicals, and, (b), water-borne salts. The recognized stand- ard preservatives in the oil group are creosote, creosote-coal tar solution, creosote-petroleum solutions and pentachlorophenol. ‘Approved preservatives and recommended retentions of preservatives in pounds per cubic foot of wood are listed in the Recommended Treatments Section, pages 36 to 38. Poles and lumber to be used in direct contact with the ground are generally treated with creosote, pentachlorophenol or one of the three following water-borne salt preservatives: Ammoniacal Copper Arsenite (ACA), Chromated Copper Arsenate—Type A (CCA), or Chro- mated Copper Arsenate—Type B (CCA). All of the standard water-borne preservatives listed in Table I, page 87 are suitable for use above the ground as well as creosote and pentachlorophenol preservatives. Standard salts or pentachlorophenol in a light or volatile petroleum solvent are better adapted to lumber and building materials where painting is desired, or where odor must be eliminated—for example, in tightly closed compartments where sensitive foods are stored or processed. Wood treated with these preservatives should be allowed to dry prior to painting, tems for which pressure treated materials should be used are poles or columns that are set in the earth, or lumber where construction details will permit a moisture content in the wood above twenty percent. These may include nailing girts, skirting, facia, balconies and porches exposed to the ‘weather, ‘American Wood-Preservers’ Association standards for the preservative treatment of lumber, plywood, poles and fence posts are designated in Table 1, along with the appropriate retentions for suitable preservatives. ‘The AWPA standards for the preservative and the corresponding Federal stand- ards are also included. New Quality Control Standards have been developed by the American Wood Preservers Institute to assure users of properly pressure treated lumber and plywood. These Standards stipulate types, quantities and penetrations of preservatives needed to protect wood against termites and decay. Inter- 3 Specifications for Poles and Lumber Preservative Treatmentested buyers need only specify items to be treated and the appropriate AWPI Standard. (6ce pages 96 and 87). The AWPI Quality Mark on each piece of presure treated lumber and plywood is evidence of treatment in accord: ance with these Standards aed on the actual service records of wood poles used in utility Hines, 4 service record of atleast fity yeas can be expected for building poles treated withthe recommended creoote, pentachlorophenol and salts preservatives in compliance with good and adequate specifications. Pole-type buildings have —~ been approved where light frame structures are restricted because of fre azar’ Wood framing members are so widely separated that fre i unlikely to spread from member to member, In case, however, of highrhazard. oc pancies lumber ean be pressure treated with fre retardant chemicals, Stand: ed freretardant treatments and chemicals are approved by the American ‘Wood Preserves’ Association and can be specified as shown in Table I Wind Pressure ‘There are two ways of selecting the Wind presure to be used in designing one of these structures. If the structure is to be built in a city, requirements of the local building code must be followed. ‘These usually will stipulate how the specified wind loads are to be applied and the pressure to be used. Conditions from which the code was derived will undoubtedly prevail over the surrounding area to a considerable distance. “The Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc. published in 1945 a map of the United States showing the recommended minimum design wind pressures, based upon data obtained from the United States Weather Bureau and American Standard Building Requirement A 58.1—1945, ‘This map, page 85, shows general areas where design wind pressures of from 15 to 30 Ib per sq ft are recommended as minimal. ‘The highest values generally are confined to the Great Plains area and to the Gulf and A\lantie coasts. The map is in all probability the most reliable information on wind pressures for the country as a whole. Tn the examples given later, maximum wind pressure has been assumed “\ to be 20 psf, which is a common code requirement for buildings under 50 fe tall. Because, in general, the principal load imposed on the frame will be the horizontal wind load, the designer should make every effort to assume a safe figure and, if possible, that of a nearby city building code. In the ab- sence of such a code within a reasonable distance, the wind map on page 35, may be used. Estimating the bearing capacity of a soil or passive earth pressure is more dificult that determining applicable wind pressure. Characteristics of @ certain soil may be determined, at the time of an investigation, with some degree of accuracy, but these characteristics may be altered by a later change in moisture content. Professor P. C. Rutledge, following tests he conducted at Purdue Univer- sity for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, Inc., devised the chart, Figure I, for determining adequate depths of set for cantilever poles subject to lateral forces. This chart permits soil classification of a general nature to be made from a simple test on the site. This test consists of deter- mining the force required to withdraw an auger from various depths. Soils are divided into five classifications, viz: very soft, poor, average, good and very hard. Values for these gradations range in Ib per sq ft from 800 to 1200; to 2000; 10 3050; to 4100 and to 4500 or above respectively. ‘This chart bases allowable unit soil pressure on the pull, in pounds, on indicator auger of 1/4-in diameter. In the chart, this pull is calibrated for two different types of soil; for sandy or gravelly soils, and for silts and clays ‘The first type perinits higher allowable unit values than the second for the am. same pull on the auger. Reliability of the chart and its method of soil evalu- © ation has been demonstrated by broad experience. If the method of Figure 1, or some similar method, for determining strength of the soil is not available, it may be necessary to resort to 4visual inspection and wo estate value fom samples taken ffm a sallow piv or hom materi emer bya ps le digger oe suger. ‘The ow ng Uescriptions ay be help in sch ees ‘The Untied Stas See handbook "Stel Sheet Piling” tists 27 sol with ther haces base on te Coulomb ankine totes: Approx mate allowable average wnt presure 8) for these soi be toed in Figure Icon be atngted heh allowable uniepresures are plowed and \Y compared with values in the chart. Allowance must be made, however, for the ulusconservatve passe presres given by the Coulomb theory Tn ‘Tobe Ik Append, page 1" aproaiete postons Tower te middie ihe or tpper thao the fe lass of sole inthe care, Figure te for als Ibed inthe United States Stel handbook lasing the sll from a vista! ispeton and entering the chart from ihe appresinate post {onda in Tabte shoul fufieh fly reliable esl for ape of tnbedinent ‘The Outdoor Advertsing Asociation of America, Inc, gives a general claiicaton of soils for use when only visual inspection ix made, with the warning that the worst condition of moisture content should be anticipated, Good sils are described in the OAAA Engineering Design Manual, page 82 as, "Compact, wellgraded sand and gravel; hard clay; wellgraded fine and coarse sand; decomposed granite rock and soil, Good soil should be well-drained and in locations where water will nt stand.” For average wis, the description is. “Compact, ine sand; medium clay; compact, wellaained sandy loam; loose, cone sand and gravel and medium cay. Average soll Should drain sufiienly well so that water docs not stand on the sirface’ Poor soils are, "Sof clay, cay loam, poorly compacted sand, clays cont 2 farge amount of silt and vegetable ater, ‘These soils will hold and absorb great quantities of moisture when wet, Usually, sols ofthis type ate found in fbwlyng areas where water stands during the wet season." iting particular soil into the chart, Figure 1, requires considerable judgment. However, in conjunction with Table IIT this clasification. pro ides a general guide tothe wil ata particular sit apuety of weak soils often can be improved! by backGling with sil cement oF other suitable materia, Wales ot baffles that spread compression over greater sol areas in the upper twothirds of the embedded depth may | be used advantageously in many cass, ‘Attention should be called to the fact that, in general, soil in the upper tworthirds of a hole is of primary importance in judging allowable values, because unit pressure above the point of rotation is the governing factor | in-depth of embedinent. When the augerpull method of testing is wed results should indicate a oil's value at the estimated position of the bottom of the pole. | In the examples given later, because average soil is assumed, an allowable soil stress of 2,300 pst as been selected. ‘With the two basic assumptions of passive earth resistance and wind pressure made, vertical loads to be designed for also must be determined. Dead load consists of the weight of all component parts of a building supported by any one pole, It is easily figured, once the spacing of poles is decided. Usually dead load in this type of structure will be small in | comparison with other loads on the pole framework. Some live loads, wind force and snow, for example, vary in diferent + parts of the country. Here again the safest course is t0 follow values shown in building codes of citics in the area. In southern states, where snow is in- frequent and light, snow load may be small, and often is ignored. In northem localities, where damp snow may pile up to a considerable depth on comparatively fat roofs, the live load will be relatively high. In addition to snow load on roofs, the live load also may include monorails or other load-carrying devices in buildings designed for special purposes Inclined rools will transmit vertical components of wind loads to pole frames and these must be adkled to dead and live loads. Building codes Nm iin general permit higher allowable unit stresses to be employed in design- ing for the combination of dead plus live plus wind loads. ‘This increase ranges from one and onequarter to one and onchalf, with most codes 5 Soil Classification After Visual inspectionChart for Embedment of Posts i § «Plt +0340) ee See: 8g se BF § MAXIM STRESS POST» Srerach MOOUCIS Sa fe 4 & % 9, 3 ry : sai Se Be & 4 gh 3 i 8 ss 88g a8 : 5 eo os & Me MENHT OF Lowe P 388 Szg 8 By s g ABOVE" GROUND SURFACE IN FT: x i Bg Ss eR of tl BSS Fy : 3 Bd y I "7 q 8 c F500] 20: = s Q : Sa & Neco 1s z 3 I ne Py gl g 3 eof e 2 ag A e 2m 3000 is q 8 cod 2500 ‘5: 2 2000 DIAGRAM oF DIMENSIONS Rao] Ce HSAs CoworFions g 1500 as e SOLUTION FOR COEFFICIENT § ol oe oF post SrABILAY 3 cn Be BO ""s\" a7o+2ean © s00- 1000 0.7- 6. a7 aaa + a te 237D +2.64n os f CHART FOR S00 8 5 6 7 & 9 10 EMBEOMENT OF POSTS weaiineo Seern oF enscbuenr®w rr ye MBEOMENT OF POSTS LAND HOON THIS PLOT BASED MOTION AT GROUND o GETERMIE Coron sorenzzas sgsotstzen | soi. type erenmnes|_s, ano e_| oerenwine | ¢ Ano» neato DEPTH OF oamarasane TRILOWAGLESratas.s > ““Reauinee € aneauinee Etwcoment oF Post Ree Figure 1 (-) () ()permitting the allowable unit stresses to be increased by one-third for such a combination of loads, provided, however, that basic unit stresses are not exceeded {or dead load plus live load. In design examples that follow, live load has been assumed to be 20 psf and the basic allowable unit stresses for dead load plus live load have been increased by one-third when wind loads have been added to the other two. Embedment of piles and poles, to develop lateral stability through passive earth pressure, has been considered for a long time. Early attempts to solve this problem generally were made in connection with the design of dock walls, bulkheads, and walls of cofferdams. These usually were based on methods of Rankine which, in turn, rested on Coulomb's theory of earth pressures, In most cases there were other horizontal supporting elements in addition to passive earth resistance against the embedded por- tion of a wall, such as anchored tie rods or cofferdam bracing. Considerations other than lateral stability often were major factors in determining depth of ‘embedment. It has long been realized that analyses based on Coulomb's formulae for ‘earth pressures are too conservative. Field tests and laboratory experiments during the last 25 or 30 years have furnished data on the pressures exerted by, and the stresses induced in, laterally loaded poles in certain types of soil. Methods of analysis have been developed by different investigators in attempts to reconcile theory with results obtained from various controlled field or laboratory studies. In practice, the design of structures utilizing laterally loaded vertical elements embedded in the ground must be governed. by assumptions, based on experiment, experience and service records of many similar structures. ‘Attaining lateral stability with minimum depth of embedment of poles is of primary importance in the design and construction of pole-type build- ings. A method for determining required depth of embedment necessary for lateral stability of poles loaded horizontally will be given here. It has been used extensively and has a wide background of successful applications, checked by numerous full-scale and laboratory experiments. In the specific problem of a single pole embedded in the ground and subjected to a lateral pull or thrust at some height above the ground, we are principally interested in depth of embedment, maximum bending mo- ‘ment, and the point where it occurs in the pole. For many years the problem of pole embedment was solved by rule of thumb, using a fixed ratio of embedded depth to overall length of pole. The depth of set required to prevent rotation of a cantilever pole acted on by a lateral force can be determined quite easily from the chart, Figure 1, when allowable soil stres, size of the pole, and height at which the lateral force acts are known. The principal factor involved in determining proper depth of embedment jstance below surface of the ground to the point of rotation of the pole. This is the point where passive earth pressure changes direction, from one side of the embedded member to the other. In poles with shallow depths of set, this point generally was found to be approximately two-thirds the embedment depth below surface of the ground. Variations were so slight as to be considered negligible because of the much greater uncertainty in soil pressure and other factors. In some cases percentage of depth to point of rotation was modified to be propor- tional to vertical area above that point divided by total vertical area. In poles, where taper is very slight, and the effect of other variables is ken into account, such a modification obviously is unwarranted. Tn some work on poles, external moment above the ground surface has been taken as the maximum, ignoring the fact that the moment curve con- tinues to increase for some distance below the surface. Some proportion of depth of embedment undoubtedly should be added to height above ground in computing maximum bending moment in the pole. If the point of rotation is at two-thirds the depth of embedment, an assumed added length of approximately one-quarter of the embedded depth for computing 7 Depth to Paint of RotationEmbedment Chart Equation for Depth of Embedment ‘maximum bendi went in the pole would seem reasonable. This assump- tion has been made in examples that follow. ‘The nomographic embedment chart of the OAAA, Inc., was developed by Prof. P. C. Rutledge from tests that he made at Purdue and Northwestern Universities. Later tests, made for the same organization by Professors Walter L. Shilts, Leroy D. Graves, and George F. Driscoll at Notre Dame University, and by Dr. J. O. Osterberg at Northwestern University bore out reliability of the chart. ent investigators used slightly different percentages of depth of embedment for the moment arms of earth pressure reactions, above and below the point of rotation. All used a depth to the point of rotation of approximately two-thirds the embedded depth. Such small differences in percentages have very little practical effect on parameters I, and G, of the chart in Figure 1 This chart, Figure 1, assumes a distance of nine-tenths the depth of embednient from the ground to the resultant of the lower earth pressure force. Using a depth of two-thirds the embedment from the ground line to the point of rotation, and assuming the lower soil pressure to have the shape of a semi-parabola curving away from that of the upper soil pressure, the distance given above would be seven-eighths instead of ninetenths the embedded depth. Such a change would alter values obtained from the chart by about four percent at the most. By blunting the lower portion of the parabola of earth pressure, as in Figure 2 page 9, the laws of statistics are complied with in the figure, and statements of various investigators that soil pressures below the point of rotation are, in general, unimportant, is brought out graphically. With the zero point at twothirds the depth of embedment, passive resistances, as shown by areas between the parabola and axis of the pole, ate equal. The center of gravity of the lower area is three-eighths of F above the bottom of the pole, or one-eighth the depth of embedment. This would make E equal to 54, of 0.208 of D. As mentioned before, this would have little effect on vanes of the chart’s parameters. ‘All other investigations made on poles with shallow embedments have tended to verify these assumptions. Small variations in the several factors used by different investigators, produce very slight changes in the equation or chavt which leads to the restt sought, depth of embedment required to prevent objectionable deflection of the pole axis from its original position, Referring to Figure 2, and using the notation given there, the general equation for depth of embedment is derived as follows:— P is the horizontal thrust in pounds His the height above ground line of the horizontal thrust in feet Bisa diameter of embedded Portion of the pole i feet A. is depth to point of rotation in feet Q4 isthe resultant of soil pressure above point of rotation in pounds S$, _isaverage soil pressure above point of rotation in pounds per square foot 5, = Q,/AB “ Qs is the resultant of soil pressure below point of rotation in pounds Sz isthe average soil pressure below point of rotation in pounds per square foot =Q/EB Cc) Ps passive earth pressure in pounds per square foot D__isdepth of embedment in feet 8 “™Y d q N 3 gl . rm tina, 4 4 J Jd Death of Embeamen? rgue 2 From the notion: Qs ABE O) = SAB ® “Taking moments about Qu: P(HT +6) = Q E+ 0 ® Paso Oro © 3H : Qa +Q (6) Substituting in @), $, AB= P+ P(H +0) : +O @ PeG+H+8) EG ® .B(E +) ~ (AF E) @ Then: Assuming that, A = 0.68 D c= 031 D E = 0.2 D (all in accordance with Rutledge and corroborated by Shilts, Graves and Driscoll) P _ 068 DB (022 +0.34D) 37 @5SD H+ ORD) (0) Po __ 0381 DB Sy 7 Gap +H) ay P ps (See Figure 2) a2) S 27D +26 wh 9 Embedment DiagramSolving for D in the quadratic equation, S, BD? — 237 PD — 264 PH =0 (13) 282+ VENPPIREAPISB 25,8 ay This equation is solved graphically for D by use of the nomographic chart P c and b= Given H, P, B and S,, depth of embedment may be readily obtained from the chart or from equation (14). Height, His obtained from the building plan. Thrust, P is computed from assumed wind pressure applied to the particular building. Width, B depends on diameter of the pole selected to resist bending moment induced by the wind force. Allowable average soil pressure, $; may be derived from any adequate soil test available at the site. Lacking the means of making any other test, a pit may be dug for a visual inspection and appraisal of the soil, since the depths involved will never be very large. Factors involved in use of the chart, Figure 1, or in solving by formula, are discussed elsewhere in connection with the design, pages 22-23. Design criteria for a post embedded in the earth and subjected to lateral thrust have been approved by the International Conference of Building Of cials, and are included in the Uniform Building Code. ‘The formula for determining depth of set and explanatory details of the recommendations appear in the appendix, page 42 to 43. in Figure 1, with insertion of the parameter C 10 nN O ()| TYPICAL DESIGNS “There are three general patterns of structures for which poletype framing js particularly well suited. For each pattern there are many vatiations, in number and spacing of bays, spacing Of poles in the bays, pitch and height 7 ot roof A typical structare of each patiern wil be illustrated and general | Fates cmt eo ll aitons of the parca pater wile st forth ‘The three types are shown in outline in Figue 3, below. Type A has an even number of equal panels in each bent, with a pole on the center Tine, A'driveway through the building can be placed on either or both sides of the centerline and the bent can be restricted to four panels or extended {to eight’ or ten panels, depending on requirements, Some buildings of this type have been built with three or five panels, with a driveway in the | Center panel, and either different heights at the caves, oF different root pitches on the two sides, as indicated by dotted lines in the figure. Wind @ 20%65,. 14 ‘Typical Frame Layout Bents @15!0"c-6 15%0" + 900" Tree A i 5 @ 18-0" 3750" Tree B‘Type B, has an odd number of equal panels in each bent, providing a driveway in the center panel. Here again the bent may be reduced to three panels or inereased to seven, nine, or more. With three panels and low eave heights, the design makes an ideal layout for stock barns, either on farms or at fairgrounds. Hundreds have been built for this purpose, as well as for warehouses with more thari three panels per bent ‘A great many pole-type buildings have been erected with a wide, clear opening in the central panel and several smaller equal panels on each side, as shown in Type C. The central panel may be twice the width of the side panels, or more, or less, but it usually is wide enough to require a truss over it. Many modifications of this arrangement are possible. Features Applicable A few general considerations apply to all pole-type buildings to all Designs of poles in bents, and longitudinal spacing of bents in buildings to use commercial lengths of lumber without waste, will effect: marked economies in their overall cost, Other factors that govern spacings may force this economy to be sacrificed, but where it can be done, savings in cost make it worth while to work out economical distances between poles and between bents. ® gn $ 38 x K 88 1 Se & 3 8} S$. ok 8 yi 3 A | 5 3 a . 4 Roof Panel T t } ri, 5 H sh " e eke st | ae ae ‘a ’ & KI s 8 8 8 s . Lan 1$*0"c-¢ Poles » % B | pectin 690s. 2:6" « 15t0" | B 8 $ g Figure 4 2 O OIf the structure is low, or is located where wind pressures are moderate, light knee-braces may be used at pole tops. Taller buildings, and those subjected to near-maximum wind pressures require additional bracing. Tops of the poles in each bent should be fixed in order to reduce somewhat bend: ing moments in poles and to ensure more equitable distribution of horizontal loads between poles in the bent. Usually, bearing values under butt ends of poles will be unimportant. Vertical loads, including vertical components of ‘the wind forces, generally are rather small, except in regions where maximum snow load may be expected, Most of the vertical load will be transmitted to surrounding soil through skin friction before reaching lower ends of poles. Investigators, both. here and abroad, have found, in the case of piles, that in average soils, vertical loads are transferred to surrounding earth in the upper portion of each pile, In a soil with low bearing capacity, the chart, Figure 1, auto: matically will compensate for it and will show the increased depth of embedment required. Bearing values can be increased by backfilling the hole with concrete or soil-cement. In cases where skin friction must be increased in order to carry vertical loads in the length of pole determined from embedment requitements; con- ‘rete encasement in the form of backfilling may be assumed to have a bond value with the wood pole of 80 Ib per sq in at working stresses. Skin friction also is effective against uplift in the case of a pole-type building that is relatively marrow and tall, or on the windward side of a building where uplift may develop on a pole through its connections to the roof structure. The American Association of State Highway Officials, in the case of piles, permits 40 percent of the allowable working load to be used for uplift against transient or temporary wind loadings. 'A concrete mat under the pole butt will not increase bearing capacity unless thickness of the concrete is sufficient to withstand the punching shear of the pole, and bending in the mat, Depth of concrete never should be less than 12 in, and should be increased where heavy loads are trans- mitted. The same quantity of concrete placed as backfilling around the pole is a more effective method of increasing bearing capacity. The enlarged area in contact with the soil permits greater vertical loads, and enlarged diameter or breadth of the encased pole provides greater resistance to slight rotation from horizontal forces. ‘The following work is based on certain assumptions similar to those which must be made for the design of any particular building: ‘Maximum wind pressure, 20 psf. (This figure is in accordance with building codes of Chicago, IIL, Detroit, and Flint, Mich., the Wiscon- sin State Building code and others. It also is the wind pressure rec. ‘omimended by regional codes as applicable to the country as a whole.) Live load; 20 psf for roofs with slopes less than 80°, (25 psf probably is the maximum that need be provided for anywhere.) Allowable soil pressure, 2,500 pst. (This is “Average” soil in Figure 1.) Lumber; commercial grades of Southern yellow pine or Douglas fir. A suitable stress grade to be selected from applicable grading rules. ‘The bulk of structurally graded lumber is cut from Southern pine and the West Coast species—Douglas fir and hemlock. Grading rules published by the two associations control grading of these species. Each contains a wide range of structural grades. These rules give all allowable working stresses, so that a satisfactory strength grade of lumber may readily be selected for any use. Current editions, “Grading Rules for Southern Pine Lumber,” and “Standard Grading and Dressing Rules,” are available from the Southern Pine Inspection Bureau, Southern Pine Association, New Orleans, La., and from the Western Wood Products Association, Portland, Ore., respectively. ‘Wood poles: Douglas fir or Southern pine with an ultimate fiber stress ‘of 8,000 psi, USA rating. Panels have been made 15{t square, centertocenter of poles, to utilize 164t lumber. The assumed roof slope is 1:4 or a Y4 pitch. In applying working stresses, character of the Joads must be considered. Dead load of a structure is always present and must be taken at full value. LLive load, or snow load, although not always present, may last for a consider- 13 Design ComputationsWorking Stresses for Combined Loadings Rafter Design able time when it does occur. Wind load, on the other hand, is a transient, fluctuating load. When its maximum occurs, it is an extreme that lasts for only a brief period. These extremes seldom occur in conjunction with maxi- mum live loads. ‘Where dead weights are very light in comparison with those imposed by maximum wind velocities, many texts recommend increasing working stresses 60 percent. This is conservative when the short duration of wind Ioads- is considered. For sawed timbers an increase of 33% percent in working stress usually is specified, but permissible working stresses for them automatically carry an increase of 10 percent or more for Normal Loading. Figures for round timbers on the other hand do not include an increase for Normal Loading. With the dead-to-live-load ratio usually found in pole- type buildings, an increase of 50 percent for wind appears justified in arriv- ing at conservative design values for round timber poles. In the following examples normal working stresses are increased by one- third when computing the effect of combined loading, including wind pres- sure, which acts with maximum intensity only a few times, if at all, during life of a structure. When dead, live and wind loads are combined, unit stresses may be increased by one-third. The vertical component of the wind load, therefore, must exceed one-third the sum of dead and live loads before it will affect the computations, Where live loads are light, and for steeply pitched roofs, vertical effect of wind load usually will enter into calculations. It always should be considered in the beginning, if only to dispose of it for the re- mainder of the work. Roofs of the three types of buildings shown will be assumed to be of 26-gauge galvanized sheets on 2x4 purlins, spaced at $0-in centers, support- WeDelewe 157.7% 1% pe W'Dek +037/" 6 10s? Figure 5 ced by 2x8 rafters at 284-in centers, with a rafter on each side of each pole. Rafters will be supported on two 2x12 plates at the outer longitudinal rows of poles and on two 3x12 plates at the intermediate rows, one on each side of each pole. The wind toad ons sloping root bed on the Duchemin formu i Sin A), PrP Ty sin® Al is the angle the roof makes with the horizontal, and P, is wind pressure normal to the roof. From the formula, this amounts to 911 psf, when wind pressure is 20 psf and the roof pitch’ is 44, Vertical and horizontal com- ponents of this normal wind pressure are 8.9 and 22 psf respectively. where P is the assumed maximum wind pressure, A “ YY ~~Y vive tood Pore! of Roof -15' Square Verbjco! Component Of Wind Lood | Assumed point oF nian Panel Load Geo! Load = 130 Lbs. Gio toed as0o dos Wind Lond -2oes cox Vota! -7E5S Lbs| 6| Weight of Pole- 380 Los) Meche aeo to Jere! lood 435 ch Without Wind 64/0 Los| ey ey ira a VR Rint of Rotation \ | ietee Roles 15'e toe Pole: 2929" (Unsupporved Lergth) Figure 6 Rafter loads are computed on a panel basis as follows: Because there is a rafter on each side of each pole, and assuming the pole diameter is approximately 7 in at the top, span length of rafters will be 14 fe in center-tocenter of supports, and there will be six rafter spaces of 28)4 in, in a panel. Panel load (Figure 4): Dead load: 6—2 x 4 purlins—2.375 ft @ $ Ib/fbm 28.5 Ib 2G-yauge sheets, 0.9 Ib/ft x 2.875 x 15.0 32.11b 2x8 rafter, 4.0 1B/fe x 16.0 64.0 1b ‘Total dead load 124.616 Live load: 20 psf x 2.875 x 15.0 712.5 1b ‘Wind load: 9 psf x 2375 x 15.0 320.6 Ib Total: Dead plus Live plus Wind load = T5776 Because of close spacing of purlins, this load may be considered as uniform. ly distributed over rafters M = 1157.7 x 14.25 x 12x 4 = 24,750 in Ib Referring to Figure 5, one-half the component of the vertical load parallel to the rafter amounts to 141.6 Ib, Secondary moment in the rafter, due to this ‘component, is ML6x 714 x 4 = 582 ind 15 Vertical Loads on FrameDesign of Plates Total moment in the rafter is: : 24,750 + 582 = 25,282 in-lb scion mits Pot he 2845 slr 1528 Tae V i the Appendix, page 44, gives the section moduli for a few of the more com- ‘mon sizes of dressed lumber used in buildings. Stress in the rafter: 25,282 15.28 Since working stresses may be increased one-third for wind forces, a grade of lumber with an allowable fiber stress of three-quarters of this amount is adequate. A suitable stress grade should be selected from standard grading rules, Omitting the Wind load, bending moment in the rafter is: yo 8371 x 14.25 x 12 3 ‘One-half the component parallel with the rafters amounts to 101.5 Ib and the secondary moment is: 101.5 x 74% x yy = 381 inb ‘Total moment is 17,900 + 381 psi = 17,900 in-tb * 18,221 intb The above selected stress also is adequate for the foregoing loading condi: tion. “If roof slopes are flat enough so that 2x4 purlins can be placed on edge to span wider spacing of rafters, a saving of about ten percent in rafter material can be made by using 2x10 rafters on $ ft-6y4-in centers instead of 2x8 rafters on 2 ft-4Y4-in centers of the example. Horizontal shear in rafters: av = opp where 3x5790 He Fx Tih Where: 1157.7 x yy = 579.0 Ib* 2 psi ‘Maximum horizontal shear on neutral plane b= Width of member Height of member V= Vertical shear Omitting the wind load, horizontal shear is only 52 psi. Allowable shearing stress for the grade selected for bending in extreme fiber, should be checked, of course. Practically any structural or stressrated grade of Southern pine or Douglas fir will have an approved working stress in shear more than adequate for these calculated unit shears. Referring to Figure 4, it will be seen that only about 12 ft of the panel load actually contributes to bending moment in plates, because the two outside rafters are fastened directly to poles. Moments have been computed for the entire panel load, because the difference is only about four percent and on the side of safety. This is done because the entire panel load enters into pole computations and can be used for both pole and plate calculations. If it is desired to use the reduced moment for the plates, the formula is, M = % WQ@LB), where W is the reduced panel load distributed over width B, and L is the span length. In the example given, W would be 5830 Ib, L 15 ft, and B 11 f-10¥4 in. Bending moment due to weight of plates would be computed separately and added to the other. Vertical shear is taken a the end reaction for the 115727 tb uniform oad. U. 8. Forest Products Laboratory, however, recommends mltting toad within height of the beam from both supports Yor calculating horwoutal shear on its neutral plane. 16Figure 7 Panel Load—Figure 4: \ Dead load—2 x 4 purlins, 6 x 2.0 Ib/ft x 16.0 26-gauge sheets, 0.9 Ib/ft x 15.0 x 15.0 2x8 rafters, 7 x 4.0 Ib/fe x 16.0 23 x 12 plates, 2x 90 lb/ft x 16.0 Total Dead load 192.01 202.5 1b 448.01 288.0 Tb =11305 1b Joad— 20 psf x 15.0 x 15.0 500.0 Ib Wind load—9 psf x 15.0 x 15.0 2025.0 1b Total, Dead plus Live plus Wind load (655.5 1b Because of close spacing of ralters, the load may be considered as uniform M = 7655.5 x 15.0.x 12x 44 = 172,249 in-lb $=57.86 in 172,249 = ABS _ 1488 psi 257.86 B Omitting Wind load, stress in an intermediate plate is: 5630.5 x 15.0 x 12 x Y4 = 126,686 ind 126,686 004 psi x 57.86 Horizontal shear in intermediate plates: V =x 7655.5 x 4 = 1918.91 319139 gs “Fxayexy Omitting Wind load, horizontal shear becomes 70 ps Plates on outside rows of poles: NA These outside roof panels, 17 x 15 ft in size, provide for a 2 overhang at the building edge. Reaction at outside. plates is about 6/10 of panel weight, approximately equivalent to a panel 10 x 15 ft in size 7Fastening Plates and Outside Rafters Bending Moment Diagram Panel Load—Figure 4: Dead Load—2 x 4 purlins, 4 x 2.0 Ib/ft x 16.0 26-gauge sheets, 0.9 Ib/ft x 15.0 x 10 2x8 rafters, 7x 4.0 Ib/fex 10 2-2 x 12 plates, 2x 6.0 Ib x 16.0 Total Dead load Live load— 20 psf x 15.0 x 10 Wind load—9 pst x 15.0x 10 Total, Dead plus Live plus Wind load 1M = 5085.0% 15.0 12x 4 = 114,413 inb $= 358: f 128.0 1b 185.0 Ib 280.0 Ib 192.0 Ib 735.01 1000.0 1b 1350.0 1b ‘Omitting wind load, stress in an outside plate is: 1M = 3785.0 15.0% 12 x % = 84,088 inTb $4038 ars psi 2x 35.82 Horizontal shear in outside plates v 085.0% 44 x = 1271.8 1b Sx ITS, Telex ity — OPP Omitting Wind load, horizontal shear becomes 75 psi. ‘These roof members will be bolted to poles, and the allowable stresses in compression, perpendicular to the grain, will govern. ‘Referring to Figure 4, page 12, an interior rafter supports a strip of roof panel 2ftdypin, or 285:in wide, A1{e6%in, or 18.754n width of the out Fide strip is carried to the rafter at the pole line. ‘The end reaction of th ifter is, therefore, 18.75 rafter is, therefore, “ho panel on page 16, (679 Ib). ‘This end reaction amounts to $85 Ib when or 0.66 of the end shear computed for an interior Dersecrion (Exaggerated) 18 O [Nwind load is included, and 280 Tb when wind is omitted, A yin diameter bolt through the 154-in thick rafter sloping 1 in 4, will carry a single end Toad of 480 Ib. Plates on intermediate rows of poles, two $ x 12 timbers, have an end reaction of 1410 Ib each, without wind load, and 1915 1b each when wind load is added, (pages 17-18). At this connection where the plates are butt joined on 6 inch diameter poles, adequate bolting for this vertical load is im practicable, Four ¥ inch bolts will be used to hold plate ends snugly against the pole, and a cleat to carry the vertical reaction will be bolted and nailed along the pole axis under each plate line. These cleats usually are 2x4 inch pieces $ to 4 feet long, Bolts or nails attaching them to the pole act parallel to the grain of the wood and are embedded for their full length. For these plate reactions, two % inch diameter bolts through the pole and two cleats provide vertical support. Four or five 60d nails will also strengthen the con- nection. Shear on the section above the lower bolt should be checked against, allowable longitudinal shear: v__ io bh Byx9 PH Plates on outside rows of poles, two 2x12 timbers, have an end reaction of 895 Ib each, without wind loads, and 1215 Ib each when wind load is added, (pages 17-18). Plate ends will be clamped to the pole with two ¥ in diameter bolts, and 2x4 cleats nailed and/or bolted along the pole axis to support the vertical load. Shear on the section above the lower bolts should be checked against allowable longitudinal shear: V _ 895 Bihan imoaue bho iygxo TP Beta ofbied use ‘The vertical load on an interior pole is next computed, Figure 6, page 15: Figure 6 has been drawn with an intermediate pole that equals height of the center one shown in Type A, Figure 5. This was done to obtain the effect of the vertical component of a full panel of wind load on the pole under consideration, when its length equals that of the center pole. ‘Dead + Live + vertical Wind load on an interior pole = 7655 Ib Dead + Live load on an interior pole = 5630 Ib Weight of a 40:ft, Class 3 or Class 4 pole = 1150 Tb approximately. Onethird of this weight, 380 Ib will be assumed to be that portion of the pole which is above the critical section, one-third the distance down from the top. ‘Another 400 Ib will be assumed as a panel load due to bracing. Total Dead + Live + Wind loads = 8435 Ib Dead + Live load only = 6410 Ib ‘The pole has an unsupported length more than 11 times its least dimen- sion and is therefore a column of intermediate class. Allowable unit stress in compression parallel to the grain in an axially loaded column of this class is determined from the formula, in which: Ps the total load on the pole, in 1b. Ais the crosssectional area of the pole one-third its Tength from the top, in sq in E is the modulus of elasticity, taken as 1,600,000 psi for Southern pine or Dougias fir. (F for other species shown in Table IV of Appendix) . 8.6E for Southern pine or Douglas fir = 5,760,000. 1is the unsupported length, in inches. ris the least radius of gyration, which is equal to one-fourth the diameter (inches), and should be taken at a point one-third the distance down, from the top. 19 Round Timber ColumnsAnalysis of Poles Under Truss Span Cis the circumference in inches. The slendemess ratio 0.2891 should not exceed 50 and unit compressive stress at the small end of the pole should be checked. It should not exceed teal nits fast umn given by se form, in which P and A are the same as given above except that A is taken at the top of the pole instead of one-third down, and $ is the resulting unit com- pressive stress parallel to the grain. ‘The crosssectional area A and the least radius of gyration r of a pole at one-third its length below the top, are computed from the pole’s circum: ference at that point. Dimensions at this third point are conveniently derived from circumferences at 6 ft from the butt listed on Table V1 of the Appendix. ‘The tabulated dimension is the minimum permitted in a class. The aver: ige for the class is appreciably larger. Stfesses computed on the basis of tabular dimensions are, therelore, considerably above those actually occurring in the average pole. Consequently, sizes selected for computed stresses are conservative. The average taper for Southern pine and Douglas fir poles can be taken conservatively at 0.25 in, in circumference per foot of length. ‘The pole in the first row right or left of center in Figure 6 is approximately 38 ft long with aan unbraced length 1 of 29.75 ft, or 35 The critical point at two-thirds the pole height in 24.8 ft, or approximately 9% ft above the bottom of the pole, and approximately 19 {t above the 64 mark for which Table VI shows circumferences of 36, 33/4 and 31 inches respectively for 40-f¢ poles of Classes 3, 4 and 5. Circumferences at the criti Cal point, assuming a taper of 0.25 in. in circumference per foot of length, are 19 x 0.25, or 4% in smaller than at the 6-ft mark, and for these poles are 31,4, 28% and 2614 in, Corresponding values of r# are 6.2, 5.2 and 44 in, sar cepege gatte nites Seti BS ETRE omen Ceomvie "y 26-0: (Uasapported Length) Em oF marimar Women? Figure 9 20and the unbraced length shown in Figure 6 is 29.75 ft or 857 in. Substituting these values in the column formula, allowable unit stresses are found to be 280, 285 and 200 psi for these three classes of poles. Actual loads assumed for design of this column are 8485 Ib with, and 6410 1b without wind. Actual load without wind, viz. 6410 Ib results in axial stresses on a crosssection at the one-third point of 83, 98, 117 psi respectively for the three classes of poles considered. They are well below allowable stresses determined from the formula, Circumferences at tops of the above class poles are $14 in, (13 x 0.25 in) smaller than at the critical point, one third the height, or in this case, 15 ft below the top. Accordingly, minimum top areas for Classes 3, 4 and 5 poles are respectively 62.4, 51.7 and 42.1 sq in. Unit compression in even the smallest of these poles under the design loading is 200 psi when wind force is included, and 152 psi when wind is omitted. ‘These values are only 1a small fractional part of allowable short column stress for any pole species. Generally, any safe load on long pole columns will be well under that allowable for a short column with area equivalent to the pole top. ‘Any class of pole down to and including Class 5 is capable of carrying vertical loads at the highest part of the building. At the outside rows of poles, both vertical loads and unsupported length of pole are less, so any Of these classes of poles will suffice. Finally, however, horizontak loads from wind pressure will determine sizes of poles in the outside rows Horizontal wind load, based on building codes of Chicago and Detroit, is taken at 20 psf of vertical wall, Wind load on a sloping roof, perpendicu- lar to the surface from the Duchemin formula, page M4, is 9.1 pst. The horizontal component for the assumed 1:4 roof slope is 2.2 psf. ‘With a height of 20 ft at the eaves, tops of poles will be fixed by truss bracing $ft deep in the plane of the bent, and by knee braces in the plane perpendicular to that of the bent. It will be assumed, as explained under embedment, that maximum bending moment in a pole will occur at approx- imately onequarter of its embedded depth below the ground surface. ‘This may be taken, temporarily, at 114 ft below the surface. Horizontal loads, then, on the outside poles of the bent are as follows, (Figure 7) 20 psf x 15x 3 = 900 1b @ top 20 psf x 15 x 17 x 10/185. = 2760 Ib @ top 20 psf x 15 x 17 x 814/185 = 2340 Ib @ bottom, 22 pst x 15 x 9.5 (roof) 315 Ib @ top ‘Total horizontal load applied at top, 3975 Ib. With rigid bracing at the tops of the poles, it is assumed that the force at any pole top will be distributed through the bracing to other poles in the bent, Because pole and bracing connections are not completely rigid and since they naturally tend to wear with repeated loadings, the portion of the Toad on any one pole which is erinsferred to others in the bent will diminish as their distances from the loaded pole increase. While this distribution may extend, with decreasing effect, to a number of poles, it is probably of no great effect beyond four or five poles. In the present example, the distribu. tion has been limited to the four poles on the windward side of the frame, which would appear to be reasonable and conservative. Assuming the de- creasing effect to be in the ratios 4—$—2—1 as the poles considered are further from the one loaded, we obtain factors of 4/10, 8/10, 2/10, and 1/10 of the wind load on the outside pole for the four windward poles, and fac- tors of 8/12, 4/12, 3/12 and 2/12 for the same poles when the load con- sidered is that at the top of the pole next to the outside one. ‘The same two groups cf factors, reversed, will apply to the next two poles loaded. In the case illustrated the loads from wind on the interior poles are not very large, although on roofs with steeper pitches these load increments would be con- siderably greater. al Distribution of Load To Columns